So I suppose I'm doing a bit of spring summer cleaning (yes, even this post was a draft from several months ago way back), and trying to turn some of these drafts on blogger into actual posts. I threw out some introduction on assessment, then again with a bit more details (which I will continue when I have some time), and now here's another topic that's been on my mind.
Maybe we shouldn't share act 2's.
Well not exactly. Let me unpack my thoughts a bit.
There are many different versions of the 3 act idea. I am talking about a fairly specific one.
Of course, act 2 is extremely important. It's the meat and potatoes of what teachers are going to teach their students. So what exactly am I saying? Ditch act 2? Well not quite.
Here's the way I see it.
It is important for teachers to develop their own approaches and mold ideas into ones that will work for them. In other words, just like how we want our students to construct their thoughts and understanding - why not do the same with teachers? Makes sense to be constructivist through and through. Emphasizing act 1 and act 3 may be the best way to approach this.
I've heard people say that "the three act idea doesn't work!" "Students get tired of always seeing these pictures and videos!" "I can't do this every day!"... so on and so forth. Here are some discussions from
- @mathhombre's post on what could go wrong with Barbie bungee without the setup for intellectual need
- @MrPicc112's mention on how "even... great ideas can [fail] or be used improperly, or rushed to the point that no meaning is taken from them."
There are certainly many more examples than this (and definitely many more since I wrote this draft...).
I choose to believe that these criticisms and problems are actually problems for some teachers (surprise). I'm going to take a crack at the reasons:
1. Teachers are all different! Teachers have different teaching styles, different personalities, and varying comfort levels with the materials/students/time of day/weather/life.
2. Students are all different! Students also have complex learning preferences, different personalities, varying comfort levels with teachers/prior knowledge/time of day/weather/peers/life
Broadening our consideration to the learning environment as a whole, we have dynamic classrooms that are unique to every moment/class/lesson.
Why am I even writing about all this (this is the same question I ask about many of my own posts)? Recently I've encountered several teachers who have gotten interested in implementing the 3 act ideas. This is exciting. However, they are looking for exact lessons to implement. Painstaking, step-by-step instructions for how the class will go. This worries me.
I don't often confront teachers in how they should facilitate learning. Discussions, yes. Confrontations, no. In fact, I get so caught up in thinking about multiple sides of the argument of
I think the solution is the following:
- Developing an abundance of act 1's
- Not all act 1's will work due to the reasons listed above about the unique classroom environment. Luckily, several excellent websites have been developed for giving teachers and students lots of options: e.g. 101qs, Estimation 180, Visual Patterns...etc. The key idea is about generating student questions that is interesting to them. Act 1 is our bridge of connection to student engagement. It is important to build this bridge authentically.
- Encourage discussions surrounding implementation
- I am a big believer in learning from everything: mistakes, successes, distractions... Talking about one way of doing things is never the way to go. Students and teachers need the freedom. Just having the option of discussion is valuable.
- Draw emphasis on student engagement
- The main selling point of the 3 acts is engagement. We should never lose sight of that. The main consideration for any teacher should be "how engaged were my students during that implementation?" and never "how well did I follow Dan Meyer's method (substitute Dan's name for your favourite teacher) of instruction?" We are not perfect, nor should we expect to be. But regardless of perfection, our focus needs to be on how many students we managed to engage and inspire during the process.
- Sharing personal stories but discouraging copying
- Not to say that "copying" won't work. Imitating best practices has its values, but I think developing and exploring your own best practices is even more valuable.
(It's like @ddmeyer read my mind. Since the initial draft, he's expanded and encouraged conversations on act 1, act 2, and act 3)
And... drum roll please...
Maybe we shouldn't share act 2's.
It's not to say that act 2 is not important. In fact, it's an important part of student learning. I often recommend the following structure of problem solving for students:
The process is not linear, it's complex and messy - just like our lives. So if we add in arrows, it would probably look lke this:
If act 1 is the door that invites students in, act 2 is the essence of what they discover inside the room. Act 2 is where students "overcome obstacles, looks for resources, and develops new tools" (according to @ddmeyer).
So act 2 is important, I've stressed that one to death. What am I suggesting then? This is basically what I am proposing: that students and teachers discover their own need for act 2's and find content in the act 2's.
What I am suggesting is to not have act 2 be predetermined. It may sound like chaos to not have the necessary information immediately ready for students -- like on a card or something -- but I think it is important for students to explore and collect information on their own. There are several benefits to this:
1. Students learn that data in reality is complex, and mathematics is our way of modelling the world.
2. Students take ownership of not only the questions, but also active collection of necessary information.
3. Students become responsible for the accuracy of their results.
4. Students are forced to actively reflect on their strategies and conclusions.
What I am saying also effectively promotes a specific kind of three act lesson. As I mentioned here, I am distinguishing between
A) a three act lesson that is open to a wide variety of questions, and
B) a three act lesson that is relatively closed and geared towards a specific objective.
I prefer type A. Even though currently I am not able to explore type A fully. At least not unless I am the only teacher teaching the course type, or I am able to convince all the other teachers to go with the same approach. We'll see what happens next year.
Just thinking out loud, perhaps having a predetermined act 2 may also have some interesting dynamic that may not be necessary. Students may feel good or bad about whether they did end up asking and exploring a question to which you had some additional information for. It takes a bit of the ownership away.
Not knowing how things will turn out is a scary thing, but I think there is a lot of richness that would come from it.
There is also an important consequence of not having a closed act 2: a powerful act 3 may be difficult.
This is a direct result of the fact that everything is left open after act 1. Students all learn, but they may learn different things. Act 3 looks different from class to class for me. Typically I may have one resultant act 3 that most of them would have explored, but there are lots of other solutions for other questions that others have arrived at. I am usually fine with this. It ends up being time for consolidation and celebration. What questions did the groups ask and how did they get there? I would let the kids spend a little more time exploring what others have explored. In a sense, some groups are creating their own act 3's for other groups to try out.
Going back to my analogy with act 1 being the door and act 2 being the wonders you find inside the room. I am suggesting that students decide what is interesting inside the room.
I am often left with the conflicting thoughts of whether this is a good way to go about it. But that's why I am throwing this out there.
Hi Jimmy,
ReplyDeleteThis post gets to some things that I've also wondered about the implementation of the three act structure. In reality, it should be a structure that does allow for some wiggle room in act 2 based on the interests of the class. That said, Dan also has written about how he often does have an agenda for what his act 2 is all about.
My only comment is a redefining of act 2 in contrast to what you describe here. I think the 'wonder in the room' is still more of an act 1 component because act 2 is where the modeling process happens. What information do you need? What is your plan for that information once you have it? How do you arrive at your answer?
Sharing the act 2 content is important because there may be a number of interesting modeling tasks associated with a given problem, and different students might be pushed to explore those different threads. In terms of implementing a given act 1, you don't want to be inventing materials for exploring all of those possible threads. That will easily burn out a teacher that might be hesitant to try out these activities in the first place. While I agree with you that finding the important information, being accountable for results, and reflecting on those results are important, this is a process that needs to be heavily scaffolded from the beginning. A more open ended Act 2 is something to work toward over the course of the year.
I like the idea of students creating Act 3s. I need to think more about how I might go about that for a given 3 act task that I allow to 'open up' a bit more than one with a predetermined Act 2.
Hey Evan,
DeleteThanks for the response! I've thought about what you've written, and about the topic a bit more, and I'll take a crack at writing out my jumbled thoughts once again.
I see what you are getting at here. You are suggesting that not sharing act 2 may consequently "easily burn out a teacher that might be hesitant to try out these activities in the first place." I think that's a very important issue as well. Perhaps having an open act 2 would only be suitable to certain teachers -- or teachers who have more experience with a more project-based approach.
In my eyes, the 3 acts is a great method for approaching inquiry-based learning. Even when poorly executed, it is a great segue into PBL because it begins with student engagement. But what I am often seeing in its execution is an over-emphasis on act 2, and sometimes the disappearance of act 3 (no satisfying BOOM).
I basically just thought out loud in this post and suggested that perhaps having that act 2 available allows people to tend that way. But at the same time, not having existing act 2's would scare people away.
So perhaps I should edit my thoughts and say, instead:
"Maybe we should share a large variety of act 2's for every act 1."
Seems like the opposite of what I said before, but I think the intention and the reasoning is the same.
As a minor note, I think I may have used the word "wonder" incorrectly there, since it was misinterpreted. I considered the modeling process a "wonder" in itself.
Good news! I nominated you for a Liebster Award!
ReplyDeleteBad news. I nominated you for a Liebster Award.
http://brennemath.blogspot.com/2013/07/huh-what-where.html
Hi Jim,
ReplyDeleteSorry it took me so long to respond here. This is a great topic to talk about. Act 2 needs to look different for each teacher. Furthermore, Act 2 for the same teacher can even look different from class to class. I can't remember the last time I taught the exact same lesson or ran Act 2 the exact same way as I did previously. It all depends on the class, the students, and what they contribute. There's a great deal of autonomy with Act 2 and I cherish it. I remember my first handful of 3 Act lessons where I tried to repeat the same process from class to class and wondered why it wasn't always successful. It's because I didn't read my students. I didn't adapt. Those were some valuable learning opportunities for me.
Maybe that's what intimidates some teachers from doing 3 Act lessons.
Thanks for posting.